Michael Haiby – DME Observer Service Based Out Of Santa Clarita, California And Covering Not Only Los Angeles County, Orange County, All Of Southern California, But Northern California As Well

My resume (see below my ‘standard’ resume) is best described as my experience of OVER 10,000 DMEs!!!  How do I know what questions from the doctor are authorized and what questions from the doctor we will stop?—again, the experience of OVER 10,000 DMEs!!!  “PLAINTIFF ATTORNEYS I’VE WORKED FOR,” state all of the following:  that, as to the discussion of the issue of ‘History’ as it relates to the DME, the word ‘history’ appears once, at the very end of the Code Section inferring that the word ‘history’ has nothing to do with the procedure for the DME itself but is rather indicating what the defense medical expert is required to produce as his written opinion (this defense medical expert’s WRITTEN opinion report is normally produced before the defense medical expert is deposed by the plaintiff’s attorney and theoretically contains the opinions that the defense medical expert would testify to at trial (if the case were to go to trial—remembering that 95% of these cases settle without going to trial).   If the lawmakers wished to have the DME be some form of ‘second deposition by doctor’ then they would have written their intent into Section 2032 Code of Civil Procedure; however, not only did the lawmakers NOT write anything like into Section 2032 Code of Civil Procedure but rather purposefully omitted words that might infer the DME was an ‘inquiry’ by the doctor to the plaintiff about their lifetime medical history, omitted words that might infer the DME was for the doctor to ask detailed ‘questions’ about the accident or incident at issue in the litigation, omitted words that might infer the DME was for the doctor to perform an ‘interview’ of anything that the doctor might choose to ask about—along these lines, the Code Section is that for PHYSICAL EXAMINATION and NOT anything else… Again, along these lines, the doctor does NOT get to ask anything he wants to ask, the doctor does NOT get to do whatever the doctor wants to do and, in fact, the lawmakers specifically indicate in Section 2032 Code of Civil Procedure for Physical Examination that the observer is to determine if the doctor “undertakes to engage in unauthorized diagnostic tests and procedures.”  Recognizing that some of the DME doctors will ask unauthorized questions which will NOT be allowed, The Court in Sharff v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.2d 508 wrote, “Whenever a doctor selected by the defendant conducts a physical examination of the plaintiff, there is a possibility that improper questions may be asked, and a lay person should not be expected to evaluate the propriety of every question at his peril.  Along these lines, plaintiff attorneys assert the ‘conditions in controversy’ argument relying on the wording of Code of Civil Procedure Section “2032.020.  (a) Any party may obtain discovery, subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by means of a physical or mental examination of (1) a party to the action, (2) an agent of any party, or (3) a natural person in the custody or under the legal control of a party, in any action in which the mental or physical condition (including the blood group) of that party or other person is in controversy in the action.”  So, what this means, as far as the plaintiff attorney is concerned (and the Court has not controverted plaintiff attorneys’ position) is that the defendant is entitled to a physical examination (subtracting mental examination for the sake of brevity in this this discussion) of the ‘condition(s) in controversy.’  Some cite a reference related to this argument as Sharff v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.2d 508, “The doctor should, of course, be free to ask such questions as may be necessary to enable him to formulate an intelligent opinion regarding the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries, but he should not be allowed to make inquiries into matters not reasonably related to the legitimate scope of the examination.”  I can tell you that a very few plaintiff attorneys see the DME as some very ominous horrible event (the very inexperienced plaintiff attorneys), and although there are a few DMEs that can be contentious, my experience is that, not downplaying the importance of the DME to the plaintiff’s case, the proceeding 99 percent of the time is routine (at least when we attend the DME is usually routine, and if it is not, we are prepared to deal with whatever is the problem) and leads to favorable results for the plaintiff (that’s why my client attorneys use me and why we do an average of 15 DME attendances per week).  I have been told that the appropriate performance of the DME by all involved (our performance, the performance of the client—specifically, for example, the client not babbling a bunch of unnecessary DETAILS about the accident or incident--and the appropriate performance by the doctor) with our report of the DME has resulted in consistently positive outcome during settlement conferences and/or during mediation (or if the case goes to trial)…